{"title":"塔斯基的固体几何基础","authors":"A. Betti, I. Loeb","doi":"10.2178/bsl/1333560806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper (Tarski:Lesfondementsdelageometriedescorps,AnnalesdelaSoci´´ Polonaise de Math´ ematiques, pp. 29-34, 1929) is in many ways remarkable. We address three historico-philosophical issues that force themselves upon the reader. First we argue that in this paper Tarski did not live up to his own methodological ideals, but displayed instead a much more pragmatic approach. Second we show that Lephilosophy and systems do not play the significant role that one may be tempted to assign to them at first glance. Especially the role of background logic must be at least partially allocated to Russell's systems of Principia mathematica. This analysis leads us, third, to a threefold distinction of the technical ways in which the domain of discourse comes to be embodied in a theory. Having all of this in place, we discuss why we have to reject the argument in (Gruszczyand Pietruszczak: Full development of Tarski's Geometry of Solids, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, vol. 4 (2008), no. 4, pp. 481-540) according to which Tarski has made a certain mistake.","PeriodicalId":55307,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of Symbolic Logic","volume":"43 1","pages":"230-260"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2012-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"52","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On Tarski's foundations of the geometry of solids\",\"authors\":\"A. Betti, I. Loeb\",\"doi\":\"10.2178/bsl/1333560806\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper (Tarski:Lesfondementsdelageometriedescorps,AnnalesdelaSoci´´ Polonaise de Math´ ematiques, pp. 29-34, 1929) is in many ways remarkable. We address three historico-philosophical issues that force themselves upon the reader. First we argue that in this paper Tarski did not live up to his own methodological ideals, but displayed instead a much more pragmatic approach. Second we show that Lephilosophy and systems do not play the significant role that one may be tempted to assign to them at first glance. Especially the role of background logic must be at least partially allocated to Russell's systems of Principia mathematica. This analysis leads us, third, to a threefold distinction of the technical ways in which the domain of discourse comes to be embodied in a theory. Having all of this in place, we discuss why we have to reject the argument in (Gruszczyand Pietruszczak: Full development of Tarski's Geometry of Solids, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, vol. 4 (2008), no. 4, pp. 481-540) according to which Tarski has made a certain mistake.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of Symbolic Logic\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"230-260\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"52\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of Symbolic Logic\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2178/bsl/1333560806\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"数学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LOGIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of Symbolic Logic","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2178/bsl/1333560806","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LOGIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 52
摘要
这篇论文(Tarski:Lesfondementsdelageometriedescorps,AnnalesdelaSoci ' ' Polonaise de Math ' ematiques, pp. 29-34, 1929)在许多方面都是非凡的。我们将讨论三个历史哲学问题,这些问题迫使读者不得不面对。首先,我们认为,在这篇论文中,塔斯基没有实现他自己的方法论理想,而是展示了一种更加实用的方法。其次,我们表明,哲学和系统并没有发挥重要的作用,人们可能会倾向于赋予他们第一眼。特别是背景逻辑的作用必须至少部分地分配给罗素的数学原理系统。第三,这种分析将我们引向话语领域在理论中体现的技术方式的三重区别。有了所有这些,我们讨论为什么我们必须拒绝(Gruszczyand Pietruszczak: Tarski's Geometry of Solids的全面发展,《符号逻辑通报》,vol. 4 (2008), no. 5)中的论点。根据塔斯基的说法,他犯了一个错误。
The paper (Tarski:Lesfondementsdelageometriedescorps,AnnalesdelaSoci´´ Polonaise de Math´ ematiques, pp. 29-34, 1929) is in many ways remarkable. We address three historico-philosophical issues that force themselves upon the reader. First we argue that in this paper Tarski did not live up to his own methodological ideals, but displayed instead a much more pragmatic approach. Second we show that Lephilosophy and systems do not play the significant role that one may be tempted to assign to them at first glance. Especially the role of background logic must be at least partially allocated to Russell's systems of Principia mathematica. This analysis leads us, third, to a threefold distinction of the technical ways in which the domain of discourse comes to be embodied in a theory. Having all of this in place, we discuss why we have to reject the argument in (Gruszczyand Pietruszczak: Full development of Tarski's Geometry of Solids, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, vol. 4 (2008), no. 4, pp. 481-540) according to which Tarski has made a certain mistake.
期刊介绍:
The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic was established in 1995 by the Association for Symbolic Logic to provide a journal of high standards that would be both accessible and of interest to as wide an audience as possible. It is designed to cover all areas within the purview of the ASL: mathematical logic and its applications, philosophical and non-classical logic and its applications, history and philosophy of logic, and philosophy and methodology of mathematics.